User:The ed17/Archives/48

I don't think an RfC should be undertaken before the move is reverted. It is common for uncertain commentators not to want to change things. They should understand what the long-standing stable name has been, and the burden of proof should be on the proponents of the move.

As for the RM, here's my count, from when you closed the RM:

For:

• 1. Cristiano Tomas (proposer)
• 2. Hchc2009
• 3. Lecen
• 4. Peterkingiron
• 5. Paulista01
• 6. Asyntax
• 7. Alarbus

Against:

• 1. Jafeluv
• 2. 70.24.244.248
• 3. Sergewoodzing
• 4. Walrasiad
• 5. Flamarande
• 6. Jorge Alo

Now I count 7-6 (6-6 if you exclude the proposer, 6-5 if you exclude the IP).

Then there were a few indeterminate commets:

• 1. Ajaxsmack - wondered what, if anything, had changed since prior RM. No statement of preference.
• 2. Loveshade - re-stated the policy. No statement of preference.
• 3. Kauffner - disputed Lecen's results, but did not state own preferene
• 4. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy - did not state own preference, but voted for in prior RM

This is consensus for a move?

And a quick scan of talk pages, it seems like 5, 6 & 7 are close collaborators with 3. Lecen in the FAC. Including yourself, of course. And 6, & 7 came in on the last day. Like you did, of course.

GoodDay (who is against) came in after you closed it.

Tell me how you are deducing consensus here, because I am really not seeing it.

As for the AMI, it seems admin Dicklyon and SandyGeorgia, neither of which had participated in the talk page discussion, agreed the close was premature and/or wrong to close.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Walrasiad (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I am afraid your failure to correct this error, and Lecen's increasing shenanigans have forced me to prematurely submit a case at the AMI questioning the ethical properiety behind your RM move and asking that you be removed from decision-making power over it. You might wish to look it over. I regret things have gotten to this stage, and I had hoped to avoid airing these allegations and that you would make the right decision in light of PBS's analysis, but since Lecen seems bloody-minded on having me blocked and derailing this AMI, I had to present this case prematurely, lest I not be available to do so later. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal Walrasiad (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apparently have many more interactions with Lecen than I thought. I've replied there, and I'm hoping it's coherent while I'm practically falling asleep. I'll review the rest of your links sometime tomorrow.

[majestic titan]

09:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed 17, on the advice of PBS, I am letting the ANI run its course, rather than comment there again. I have read your new replies at the ANI, and I believe they were sincere and would like to thank you for clearing it up. I am reasonably satisfied that your intent was honest.

I feel I also owe you a more personal apology about putting you through this. The pattern of Lecen's aggressive tactics over this led me to assume the worst about the situation. The discovery of his frequent presence on your talk page and what seemed like overly intimate contact, and your replies here to my protests which seemed to me rather like a brush-off, reinforced the impression of something more sinister afoot. As mentioned, I was heistant to post those allegations. I wanted to wait for the ANI to run further along, and at least wait for your reaction and reply to PBS's analysis, and that of any other neutral admin that might have a comment. And had these developed reasonably, these allegations would have never seen the light of day. But Lecen's efforts to get me blocked and derail the ANI forced my hand prematurely.

This has been an exhausting and nightmarish experience for me, as I am sure no picnic for you either. As I mentioned to PBS, I have been here for a few years, and have seen my share of contention, but nothing quite as brutish as this. And it pains me to realize that I have contributed to it, that I too have been brutish, specifically to you. And for that, I would like to extend my apologies. I saw what appeared to me like gangland tactics and bullying intimidation and was determined not to stand for it.

I still firmly believe you made a mistake, and I still believe the RM should be reopened. If it is at all helpful to your decision, or that of any other admin, I have posted what I believe is a more sober and careful account of the case for common usage in the talk page. But otherwise I will stand back and wait for the result of the ANI.

Once again, I'd like to apologize for any distress I doubtlessly have caused you. Walrasiad (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I submitted a statement of satisfaction at the ANI. The text is:

Satisfaction and Apology I was advised to stay from the ANI, but I would like to come on the record here to thank The ed 17 for his replies to what certainly the most distressing allegations and thank him for clearing them up. I would like to record unambiguously that, for my part, I believe Ed's answers are sincere, and that I am reasonably satisfied there was no dishonest intent in the closure of the RM. Given the proximity to one of the participants, it would have probably been wiser to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I believe now there was no actual impropriety and that appearances, however unfortunate, were coincidental, and that I jumped too quickly to conclusions. I would also like to extend my personal apologies to Ed for the hastiness by which I submitted these allegations, not giving this ANI time to evolve, which might have allayed my suspicions and forestalled this ordeal. And furthermore, and especially, to apologize to Ed for the unsavory strength of some of my speculations about motive, which I now retract, and if they are repeated beyond this forum, I will personally take it upon myself to repudiate. However, let me also reiterate my continued belief that the closure and move was in error, but I am satisfied that there was at least no dishonesty behind it.

If you would like me to repeat this statement and/or repudiate any of my allegations in any other forum (e.g. FA?), I would be happy to do so upon request. Walrasiad (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's all really appreciated on my end. The whole situation was just unnecessarily nasty, and the anti-nationalist comments (perceived or real) that lead to pro-nationalist comments just blew the whole thing to smithereens. That's what sucks about internet discussions. As soon as the kindling catches, it's like trying to stop

WT:FAC

right now, are the only thing that can stop it.

As for FAC, everything should be okay as the allegations weren't conclusive and occurred away from the process. Anyway, I don't hold grudges or anything, so don't worry about me wiki-stalking you or anything. This is random, but looking at your article contribs, have you ever thought of joining

[majestic titan]

06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm relieved. I was afraid I had hurt you too deeply for retrieval. You might also be glad to know that I've begun to patch things up with ChristianoThomas. I am afraid Lecen, however, is going to take longer. He just showed up at my talk page with a highly irregular offer to effectively partition "ownership" of different John articles, deploying poor young Christiano as his stooge. I nearly bit his head off.

On MilHist: well, to be frank, I don't really know how WikiProjects operate. And, unlike you, I don't have the patience or meticulousness for careful quality-assurance. I look for neglected areas and just pump them with content, quality be damned (well, almost). Besides, my interest is not military per se, but rather trade (nautical & colonialism just comes with that). I presume there are a lot grognards at MilHist and I doubt I could keep up with them. My few outright military history articles (e.g.

Battle of Cochin (1504)

) were incidental to this theme (i.e. I needed to link to them, the articles didn't exist, so I wrote them myself). But I am not a natural military historian, and quality assurance for the areas I cover would be daunting - there simply aren't that many secondary sources for it (have had to resort a lot to chronicles, in archaic Portuguese, for details; not sure how English-speaking MilHist people would handle that. I doubt any of my articles could climb above C-class).

On the John VI: as mentioned, I would still like to appeal to you to reverse the close & move on John VI. I have already posted in the talk page a new set of careful and more accurate numerical measures of preponderance of names. This is having repercussions on John V, with all the same things going on, and confusing editors coming in from the RM page. Poor Jimbo Wales is now getting an earful. And I pretty much expect that every other day from now on there's going to be repeated flips & moves, & reiterations of this debate across different pages (and God forbid Spanish, French or others hear about this and try the same stunt with theirs, citing this as an example). This is a very unstable situation. You must reverse your close & move, the debate needs to be re-opened and settled once and for all, or at least return to where it was long-standing & stable and taken up in a few months time. But the current situation is highly unstable, is having repercussion across other pages, and will not simply go away. Please consider this seriously. This is not merely about John VI, nor even merely about royal biographies. It affects how all history articles are written. Walrasiad (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that below. Even if you consider the 'offer' to be a poor idea, you shouldn't bite people's heads off. It's just continuing the madness that is this whole debate! If we can all keep it civil, maybe we can actually find a resolution; without it, everyone's going to be too mad to agree to anything.

We're basically just a large group of people who like military history. Even if you don't want to contribute specific quality content, you could always join and contribute to discussions on the

talk page

, or review articles that strike your fancy. We're a pretty collegial and welcoming group of people, and I'm sure some discussions could benefit from some of your opinions or ideas.

Hah, this all migrated to Jimbo's talk page? Lovely. I see that discussion fell apart in either xenophobic remarks or remarks that could be interpreted as xenophobic. Can't we all get along? Sigh. I am not going to move it back; I still think my assessment of the local consensus was correct, I haven't seen a discussion with outside editors that hasn't been hijacked by overpersonalized remarks between the warring factions (which drives everyone else away), and most importantly, I'm way too involved by this point to do much of anything.

[majestic titan]

11:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A Pasty for you!

	A Pasty for you!
	From one Yooper to another, here's hoping that your 2012 is going well in real life if it isn't on-wiki as well. Imzadi 1979 → 09:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You just reminded me how hungry I am. Shameful. I'm hoping my year will start off on the right foot when I return to Marquette and college in a few hours. :-) And of course, I hope the same for you. Let me know if I can help with pictures or anything.

[majestic titan]

09:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we have plenty of snow here in Negaunee, so I'm sure you'll find enough for your liking when you arrive! (Yeah, I'm still here for the holidays, and not in any hurry to head south just yet. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I'm clearly in the minority here but snow is not my favorite thing to deal with. Especially with the tires on my car(!).

[majestic titan]

09:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not the only one though. We got into a nasty little snow storm on M-28coming back from a day trip to the Northern Lower right before Christmas. Fortunately, when I do decide to head back, I can schedule my return trip for a nice day. Imzadi 1979 → 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I went up for New Year's and decided to drive back on the night of Jan 1st. Bad decision. Rumble strips serve as good yellow and white lines when the road is covered in snow. Anyway, I need sleep. I'll be back on tomorrow afternoon-ish. Peace,

[majestic titan]

10:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi Ed, just a note that I'd prefer to be contacted if there is to be a major change in a write-up that's already been set as finished, as your new version is quite a change from what I had written. I'm not saying it's worse, far from it... only as I implied in the newsroom, you may not be quite detached from the issue. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm attached; I don't really have an opinion on any of it and could care less what happens, as long as there is still a process to submit my articles to. ;-) I think my participation was limited to !voting in favor of an RfC, but only because with so much comment and mudslinging, there really isn't another option. My apologies for not contacting you, but I hope you agree with most of the changes.

[majestic titan]

10:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• It reads fine, I just did a couple of small changes (hopefully you agree with them; in case you were planning on asking, I cut vitriol as not all of our readers are native speakers of English). Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, the detachment issue is a reference to you being quite active at FAC and thus perhaps more attached to the process as run. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, it reads better in your version anyway! I see what you mean now, and I hope my previous answer shows that I'm relatively neutral unless someone wants to abolish FAC, which seems unlikely. I've copyedited myself a bit and will look it over again tomorrow, when it's not 5am, to make sure it's ready for publishing. Thanks Crisco!

[majestic titan]

10:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome, and OMG at you being up at 5am your time. I'd have conked out. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I changed the word "devolved", which I thought carried an unintentional implication. Aside from that, I will refrain from expressing an opinion :).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be moved off of Featured content and into a special Discussion report, however. It fits the second theme better than the first. ResMar 14:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I have no qualms with running FC without a lead story this week. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• FYI. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel there is an extremely important point in SG's resignation statement that goes far beyond anything to do with Featured Articles and has a global impact. It does not appear to have been mentioned in the Signpost draft that I have seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because it really has nothing to do with subject of the article: FAC and the leadership debate.

[majestic titan]

01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Quick question for you, after noticing that SG seems to be taking the original draft as a personal attack and the talk page of the article is rife with hate for it: did you see the draft as a personal attack, or just something that needed more background and a more comprehensive summary? I tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but... Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't really notice the title/picture combo until later (as you may be able to tell by my confused replies on her page), but while I can see how you meant it, I could also see how it could be construed as an attack. It happens, don't beat yourself up over it. The original draft was just really short on information and gave an entirely unneeded focus on TCO's RfC, which was not the main story. :-)
    [majestic titan]
    22:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Understood, and taking a fuller look at WT:FAC agreed. It seems that there is a happy ending here as well; the prose looks great and the discussion is winding down. Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Anytime! I had a good time writing it. Thanks for not taking offense when I completely overwrote your text with no warning, too. :-)
        [majestic titan]
        06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Nah, no biggie. After all, it does say (literally) everywhere: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Capitan Prat

Hey Ed, I got bored and started an article on Chilean battleship Capitán Prat. Given your area of expertise, I thought you might be able to lend a hand, particularly with regards to the service history. Think we can beat it into shape for GA? Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can add a bit, though most of my 'expertise' is in the political history that lead to the dreadnought race and not so much the naval history of the time. We may be able to get it to GA, but there won't be enough information out there for FA.

[majestic titan]

06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Also. "[You] got bored". You better hope Parsecgirl doesn't see that comment or she's going to start asking for more time with you. ;-)

[majestic titan]

11:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

She was in the room with me, doing homework for her master's - that's why I was bored, because she was otherwise occupied ;)

As for Capitan Prat, there's really no way to get her past GA (if we can get that far!). Thanks for what you've been able to do so far. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, fine, you got lucky ... this time. ;-) That's about all I have until I go home and will have maybe a sentence or two from English's Armed Forces of Latin America. I found this, but that claims the process started in 1884 – is that incorrect?

[majestic titan]

20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

John/Joao VI

Since you're are the administrator in charge of the situation, I had to come show you this piece of conversation I had yesterday with Walrasiad:

Dear Walrasiad,

After time of thinking, I would like to say I am sorry we have been at odds. I do not like to be at odds with people, and sometimes I can get a bit to nationalistic, but you can also come off as rude sometimes. I would like to put our disagreements behind us, as I do not want to have an inimigos here on wikipedia. I hope you feel the same and that we can put this whole fiasco behind us.

Thank you,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The recent move request on João V won't pass. You won't get a consensus anymore. No administrator will revert the ed 17's decision to close the move request, since he is a widely respected editor. Thus, I want to propose a settlement: Cristiano Tomás will not rename the other remaining Portuguese Kings called João (I, II, III and IV). Since it seems you enjoy writing about the 14th-17th centuries period, you'll still be able to call your kings by their Anglicized names. We'll keep João V and João VI. You'll get 60% and we 40%. The other option is to try to see how far this will go. --Lecen (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will not, lets just do this magnificent proposal. Do you not agree walrasiad? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, are you proposing that I sell out the integrity of Wikipedia, or else you'll give me a headache? Take possession of articles? Or else? In case you haven't noticed Lecen, I don't much appreciate your gangland tactics. So you now realize your bullying methods - manipulation, personal attacks, baseless accusations, attempted blocks, etc. - do not intimidate me. So now you want to detach the point of strongest resistance, bribe me off with a side-deal, so you can focus your fire on harassing and bullying the other editors? Just what kind of person do you take me for? To my shame, I have allowed my honor to be tattered in this affair, but I still have some left. Take your disgraceful, dirty deal and get out of my sight. Walrasiad (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Cristiano Tomas: Never let other people speak in your name. Especially not manipulative thugs. You are young, your honor is still untainted. Guard it well, for life will be throwing lots of dirt at it and you'll miss it when it is gone. Walrasiad (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The ed17, the original conversation here. As you can see, I tried to reason with him and that's what I got. Now you know why no other editor is taking part on the discussion. Is this kind of behavior allowed? --Lecen (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's borderline, which means no administrator will block, because there's no clear delineation for when a block for civility is needed. Plus, unless he's threatening you or something, I'm rather involved by this point and can't block anyone. This whole affair is one big trainwreck.

[majestic titan]

11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to block him. I know quite well what would happened if you did that. He would go again to the ANI and make complaints until no one else would care. I just wanted to show you how classy the discussion is. --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

AKA: I get desysoped in about a day. ;-) I'm conversing with one of the editors above... perhaps something good will come out of it.

[majestic titan]

11:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Answering your question: GoodDay and Wikid77 have been trying for a few days to get somekind of support from Jimbo Wales. See here, here and here. Last time I checked, this was called Canvassing and was not allowed. However, since they can do whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't matter. --Lecen (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, this is where technicalities come in – they can say that they are discussing the matter on a user talk page with an editor. Even if this editor is the (co-)founder of Wikipedia and has more talk page stalkers than most of the rest of the userbase combined.

[majestic titan]

11:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt to get me blocked? Hm. Maybe it is about time I start collecting documentation on the outsized volume of personal attacks and attempts to manipulate administrators to block users in this debate. Walrasiad (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this was an attempt to get you blocked, given that he knew I was way to involved to do anything...

[majestic titan]

20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Jimbo Wales has no more authority over content, then any other editor. Anyways, I left the discussion at his talkpage, due to the continued accusations of xenophobia & prejudice. It's also why I left the discussion over the RM I had started. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

These I take it: Personal attacks on User:GoodDay at User talk:Jimbo Wales talk page:

• [1] "The problem is that GoodDay is an user who doesn't actually contribute writing articles (such as I do: I have nine FAs behind my back) but only on taking part on discussions over what he believes to be the end of the Anglo culture. Not the kind of editor who is truly useful to Wikipedia"
• [2] "Could you at least pretend that you have no foreign culture prejudice? Please? This "Oh my God, they are writing all articles in another foreign language" is not helpful. Try to write Featured Articles like I did. Now that's helpful"
• [3] selective quote and personal interpretation: "You could also say: "Get the hell out of my country, foreigners!" It will be just wonderful for Wikipedia's reputation once it's learned that there are editors with a clear xenophobic speech."

Walrasiad (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I departed Jimbo's talkpage. I had gotten enough of the crap thrown at me arond hockey articles, over the years from other editors & so I've little tolerance for it, nowadays. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment & Proposal

Perhaps not. But this "offer" was an attempt to bribe me into non-participation by offering to partition (

The toxicity in this discussion is, in my reading, very unbalanced primarily by one factor: Lecen's tactics against other editors, which have been relentlessly trying to focus on the personal. He made one brief argument (numbers) in the RM talk discussion, and since then it has all been personal attacks, insinuations of personal bias, accusations of xenophoboa, and blocking attempts. His aggressive tactics (conjoined with Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities) have been having a very chilling effect on this debate, attempting to silence or hound editors who oppose his view away, and keeping new editors from entering, which hardly seems conducive to a sober discussion and resolution.

e.g. some examples of hostility & chilling effect, from the talk page at John VI of Portugal, in the course of the RM::

• [4] hostile personal attack ("... I don't remember ever seeing you contributing to articles about Portugal or Brazil. What is your interest here? I hope not to imply that I am a liar by giving false results"") to another editor, user:Kauffner, whose sole comment to merit that hostility was to suggest the technical point that Lecen forgot to set the filter on his Googlebooks results to omit Portuguese-language books. Kauffner did not reply or participate further in that discussion.
• [5] personal attack on User:SergeWoodzing ("Don't claim as a universal true what is clearly your personal xenophobia").

This is just a couple of examples. Lots more of this personal attacks & xenophobia accusations can be found elswhere (as you well know). Which is very pot-kettle, consider only:

• [6], discussion between Alarbus and Lecen, strategizing and characterizing opposition as due merely to "foreigners", an "Anglo-Saxon" conspiracy motivated by "cultural hostility", while themselves characterizing Anglo-Saxon civilization as "declinist" and "failed", and characterizing this entire affair as a struggle between Brazilians vs. Anglo-Saxons, us versus them, "defend your culture". I think that helps clarify where the xenophobia and cultural hostility in this sorry affair really lies. Note also the opinion that people who don't contribute to Portuguese/Brazilian articles shouldn't have a say (this is a repeated theme in Lecen, e.g.
  • [7]"None of them have made any contribution to articles about João VI, nor his son Pedro I, nor his grandson Pedro II: they opposed the move because they saw it as an attack against Anglo culture"

User:Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities about other people's posts are also easy to collect:

• [8] "does wikt:not in Kansas anymore help you with your depth perception? At least you're funny in a self-defecating sort of way"
• [9] "Bat guano, it does. Mirrors everywhere."
• [10] "This is all chimp shit flung about a cage in the zoo."
• [11] "LART" (with link to page describing intenet slang for "Loser")

As evidence of their chilling effect on outside participation, I present the following comment by User:Kansas Bear on my talk page (who had not participated in the discussion, and whom I have never interacted with before):

• [12] "Since I don't care to have my posts called "chimp shit" or "bat guano" by user:Alarbus, I will post some numbers here.", including a request that I not mention his name if I re-posted those figures on the talk page, indicative of the atmosphere they had created.

Lots more of where that came from. And I have not even touched on the blocking attempt stunts yet.

I am not trying to present the case to block Lecen & Alarbus here, but just a brief illustration of the chilling factor I want to emphasize here, that their focus on the personal is driving out participants from the discussion.

Now, I have been no angel either - I know that and you know that. But I don't think I have made personal attacks (well, except against you....), or made people's backgrounds or nationality a factor. I deplore Lecen's tactics, which I believe are thuggish, but I have nothing against the man himself. Moreover, I believe I have made repeated attempts to return to the matter at hand, to focus on the item of discussion, to engage the topic and present the case in sober language, apologized and backtracked when I stepped over the line and felt I wasn't being productive. But witnessing Lecen's aggressive tactics to drive people away and silence opposition with personal attacks, accusations of xenophobia and other stunts, is bullying, silencing discussion and scaring away editor participation and a sane resolution.

Throughout, I have felt a strong sense of responsibility towards fellow editors, indeed to all editors of Wikipedia, to not allow such tactics to go unchallenged. Lecen knows I am the only person here upon whom accusations of cultural hostility & xenophobia can't stick (but lord how he has tried!), whereas others of different nationality & editing backgrounds are more vulnerable and more easily scared away. That is why I have been the principal target of Lecen's blocking attempts and (when those failed to scare me) bribery.

So I'd like to make a proposition, which I hope will be considered seriously: re-open the discussion. I don't particularly care in what forum or format. But I am willing to step back. I am willing to volunteer myself to be blocked from that discussion for its duration, on the condition that Lecen and Alarbus are also blocked. That way, there is no chilling effect, no fear of personal attack, personal accusations and stunts. All other editors can participate, without fear of personal attack.

(If possible, I would like it if it was engineered not as a complete block, as I would like to continue working on some other Wiki articles, but only a block on that discussion. Maybe, I can agree to a deal to vow not to participate, and agree to be subjected to an "instant block", without question, the moment an admin finds I participated in it or have tried to influence editors participating in it. This would hold for a set period of time, in which the discussion is opened. And that a similar deal be extended to Lecen & Alarbus.)

I know this is unorthodox, and if you find it hard to justify, I believe I have gathered enough evidence on both Lecen and Alarbus on their excessive resort to personal attacks and the chilling effect they have had on this debate, which I could present formally in another ANI and go through that process. But I would rather avoid opening another ugly public laundry list, and more acrimony and ordeal, and offer this proposition instead to avoid all the unpleasantness.

To summarize: open a new discussion, invite everyone to participate, except myself, Lecen and Alarbus (our existing comments can stand, and be considered, and we can read, but we cannot make any new comment or interventions for the duration of the discussion, on threat of instant block).

I believe this can go a long way to resolving this matter. If you approve, I (or you?) can formally propose it at the ANI.

Let me know what you think. Walrasiad (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"I deplore Lecen's tactics, which I believe are thuggish..." Those are nice words. Are you going to keep insulting me for much longer? --Lecen (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, please don't mar the continuity my message to Ed by inserting your edits within them. If you want to post replies, you can place your edits separately. This is not where I'm presenting the case against you. I have a lot more material. Rest assured, you'll be very busy with edits and explanations, then. Although hopefully, there will be no need. Please consider this proposition seriously. It would be the least unpleasant way to resolve this. Walrasiad (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Looked through the history and saw what was said. I didn't think Lecen's insertions were too distracting, but everyone has their own tastes and preferences. This is basically what I was proposing when I was continually pushing for an RfC on the matter. I think the three of you could participate, as you all have legitimate views, but I would delegate someone beforehand to remove any personalized comments, or this is going to go the same as the ANI discussions. The advantage of doing it as an RfC is that you will receive outside input, rather than the same old people rehashing the same arguments. Regards,

[majestic titan]

02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, given the record of excessive personal attacks, accusations of xenophobia and stunts, I think Lecen & Albarus's participation will be chilling and not conducive to open discussion and participation by other editors. Few editors are willing to be subjected to those sort of harangues and accusations, and are unlikely to participate in that atmosphere (as already seen above). If you feel it advisable that I pursue an ANI and conventionally request another admin to block Lecen & Alarbus for personal attacks, etc., then I am prepared to do so, although I had hoped to avoid that step. I had hoped a compromise could be reached here, by formal agreement between us, for a speedy and open resolution, for which I would be willing to place myself on the sacrificial block. Since you seem to know Lecen well, I was hoping you could approach him with this proposal and counsel him. Walrasiad (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: A slight modification, which would maintain our participation, would have each of us three draft and submit a single comprehensive statement of our positions, and then make no further comment or remark to any other editor on the matter for the duration of the discussion. And that if any of us three are seen to be making any further comment, or influencing other editors, or trying to canvass, or any other shenanigan, for the duartion, then instant block. Walrasiad (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That is one reason why I proposed having a neutral party search for and remove overly personal comments. The other is that the opposite side hasn't had too shiny of a record with personal remarks either. ANI isn't going to do anything, not when the attacks are borderline and there's an ongoing Arbitration case on civility. Your best chance is an RfC that allows outside views to be raised, along with someone to watch for personal comments, so that everything stays on a tangible subject.

[majestic titan]

03:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not relying on any one statement, but a pattern, an excess of them - volume more than content. As well as evidence of its effects. But as I said, I'd rather not do an ANI. I am not sure what constitutes a neutral party, or if such a neutral party is trustworthy, or, in an attempt to seem even-handed, lets things slide and loses a handle on participation. I'd rather a lockbox on the bullies. Excluding me, Lecen, and Alarbus (or restrict us to one statement only) needs to be a condition. Walrasiad (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please start an RfC. Discussions like the one above are going to lead to a good number of blocks. (ed, I suggest perhaps archiving?) Prodego ^talk 05:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Prodego I sent you an e-mail a couple days back, but didn't get a reply. I wonder if you received it? As for starting an RfC, I'd rather hash the conditions out first here, and clearly set out the preliminary terms, or else I suspect it won't likely end up any better than the last RM. Walrasiad (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, replied now. Prodego ^talk 05:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I see no point on this anymore, but Walrasiad made some harsh and erroneously remarks about me above. I'll have to reply:

("... I don't remember ever seeing you contributing to articles about Portugal or Brazil. What is your interest here? I hope not to imply that I am a liar by giving false results"")

The sentence above was a reply to Kauffner's comments: "These "Joao VI" results are mostly non-English." He said I was trying to cheat by giving false results. I posted links and more links proving that he said something without foundation.

("Don't claim as a universal true what is clearly your personal xenophobia").

The sentence above was a reply to this: "Most readers of English are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures, just like most readers of Portuguese are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures." If this is not a xenophobic remark, I have no idea what it is, then.

"...while themselves characterizing Anglo-Saxon civilization as "declinist" and "failed", and characterizing this entire affair as a struggle between Brazilians vs. Anglo-Saxons, us versus them, "defend your culture".

I never said that Anglo-Saxon culture was declining or failing. Indeed Alarbus said something about it, but not on this tone. What he meant was that the USA was not alone anymore in the world. It has to understand that there are other powers rising. Anyway, I'm not Alarbus. So he shouldn't have said "...while themselves characterizing Anglo-Saxon civilization as 'declinist' and 'failed". I never said anything like that. It is a lie.

"None of them have made any contribution to articles about João VI, nor his son Pedro I, nor his grandson Pedro II: they opposed the move because they saw it as an attack against Anglo culture"

Indeed. According to their own words. See this link on section Walrasiad (subsection "A few diffs that will be helpful to understand the entire discussion").

"User:Alarbus's dismissive vulgarities about other people's posts are also easy to collect:"

Obviosulsy, I can't answer for Alarbus. He/she is a grown up. However, I'd like to remember that his comments were made to me on his talk page, not on João VI's talk page to everyone see.

This is my last comment here about this entire mess: the "massive" opposition to ed17's closure is limited only to Walrasiad, GoodDay and SergeWoodzing. That's telling. I have no idea why we need a RfC. I tried to talk to Prodego but he opted to ignore me. I don't know why. Since I'm actually the only editor who can be described as an specialist on the subject, my opinion should matter. But it's not for what I've seen. I tried to reach Walrasiad but you saw his reply. That's it. --Lecen (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the comments above. It seems the RfC is going ahead, regretfully without the lockbox on three editors I proposed. For the sake of peace, I am not going to contest that, and I am going to withhold my ANI for the moment. But let me be clear here now that I will be watching it closely. And let me be clear ahead of time that, that in the interests of securing widespread participation and a non-hostile environment:

* on the first personal attack by Lecen or Alarbus on another editor, no matter how borderline

* on the first accusation of xenophobia

* on the first reference to another editor's nationality,

* on the first "claim of ownership" of an article,

* on the first suggestion that another editor's comments are in any way less valuable because of his past editing record

* on the first referral to a past post of another editor, with the purpose of invalidating his current comment,

* on the first instance of attempted intimidation of another editor by other means,

* on the first whisper of vulgarity,

I shall immediately submit an ANI to have Lecen & Alarbus blocked. Walrasiad (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For this much needed closure. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

[majestic titan]

20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:João VI of Portugal#Requested move

Your comment in the section

Maritime Commission type N3 Ships

I've been adding bits to your original

The whole lot could use reorganization to fit reality rather than the current almost exclusively Navy/DANFS centric look. Considering the swirling mess renames and such seem to bring to this place, as with João/John above, it may not be worth it. Palmeira (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, most renames are very uncontroversial, as I think this would be. I don't particularly care what you do with it; I only created it to stop a

[majestic titan]

23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. It should be completely non-controversial and probably nearly invisible. What I am thinking about with respect to the Enceladus class/Port Repair Ships may be less so since that would be deleting some of the individual ship pages that started as nothing but DANFS copies for ships that were Navy for a few days or even just a day. I think it would be logical to cover the four ships that had actual naval service in individual pages and consolidate the others under port repair where several got overseas, though others just vanished even there. Palmeira (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

John/Joao VI progress report

It has been reasonably civilized thus far, but it began to fray at the edges this afternoon once User:Paulista01 questioned other editors right to comment [13], and quickly got personal. Evidence of disruptive and chilling impact: umbrage taken by other editors at Paulista01's comments (& mini-edit-war)

• [14] - User:DWC LR lured to counter-accuse.
• [15] - Paulista's response

• [16] - User:Moriori compelled to defend his right to participate.

• [17]] admin User:Dicklyon compelled to justify his right to participate.

(mini-edit war: User:Prodego's first attempt to contain disruption [18], Paulista01's restores comment that launched disruption [19], Prodego reverts [20], Paulista01 reverts [21], User:PeterSymonds reverses [22].

User:Lecen thus far:

• [23]] uncivil comment to User:SergeWoodzing "You may not know Portuguese and Brazilian history, but I do."

• [24] uncivil tone to User:Prodego "See your talk page. It's all there. Ow, I'm sorry, you ignored it. My bad."

• [25] - Lecen enters into Paulista01's opening
• [26] - personal attack by Lecen on User:Wikid77, "At least try to pretend you know something about Portuguese/Brazilian history"

I'm not launching the ANI yet, just making you aware of attempts to cook up a hostile atmosphere and drive away other participants. If you can, persuade Lecen to rectify the tone of that last comment. Walrasiad (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Prodego is already discussing it with him, I believe. I'll keep an eye on it but will probably be offline until tonight or tomorrow.

[majestic titan]

23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SMS

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

- Dank (push to talk

No, it is the IP address of the library where I usually edit Wikipedia. I have had a couple incidents of other people using my account while I had stepped away from my computer for a few minutes. Just some absent-mindedness. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

From the comment on the Wikiproject MILHIST talk page, it looks like that person is leaving Wikipedia, so hopefully there won't be any further problems. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Jan Bugle

Hi mate, the Contest results are done and I'm just finishing off the December Article News for inclusion in this issue (actually we have to ensure the January issue uses the December Article News page, February uses January, etc, to get in sync -- will look at that shortly). I'll also do the Awards handed out in December. Do you want to look at From the Editors? That can include a reminder about Military Historian of the Year, noms having opened and voting due to start on the 21st. Not sure we have an Op-Ed though, and need to check if HcHc has his book review ready yet (we at least have one from Nick)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought. I think we have to go with the December articles unless we want to delay publishing it until February. Should we note this somewhere on the page? I think Hc's review could be an op-ed, or at least that's what he was saying earlier. I need to draw up questions to interview Kirill with – I'm open to a few suggestions from you. ;-)

[majestic titan]

22:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I think our goal with skipping the "December" issue was so delivery month and issue month were in sync, i.e. "January" issue goes out in January, "February" goes out in February, etc. However we're still doing a retrospective on what actually happened the month before, e.g. we report the December writing contest results in the January issue (because of course January's context is still in progress in January), and therefore it's logical we report articles promoted to A/FA-Class in December in the January issue as well (because we don't yet know all the articles promoted in January). Same thing with Awards. As long as we get each issue out by around mid-month (i.e. around now!) then I think we'll look fine doing it this way; in fact I don't really see another way to do it... ;-) If Hchc's thingie is an op-ed, even better. If we only have one book review, that's fine. Interview questions for Kirill? Can you start off and ping me when you've got a few, and I can chime in? Gotta check on Awards from December now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll work on this either tomorrow night or Tuesday, when I don't have any classes. Thanks Ian!

[majestic titan]

07:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How's the interview going, mate? I think we'd better get this out ASAP otherwise we may as well wait for the Historian of the Year results -- but that would take us perilously close to February, which is what we were trying to avoid by renaming the issues. Do you want to leave the interview till next month? Since Hchc's completed his piece we can use that for the op-ed, and I'm happy to run off a from the editors spiel some time tonight, mentioning Historian of the Year voting plus the review awards, in which case we'd be ready to hit the presses... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not good, I haven't had a chance to draw up any questions yet. >< I'd like to get it out before the voting ends so we can have a last reminder to vote, so I suppose we should put it off till next month, lol. I'm in class-ish right now (

[majestic titan]

14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Ed, Ed, I said I was doing from the editors -- I didn't get what you meant by FTE, to me it's "full time effort"! Anyway, I've just drafted pretty well what you've done but find you've beaten me to saving it. Oh well, I guess we're about ready to go then, can you just move the Op-Ed in and kill the Review Essay in the header? I'm hitting the sack... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh damn, I thought I could get it in before you so I didn't make you do all the work. Sorry! Feel free to add whatever you like. I'm starting the interview and will have it done by tonight – hopefully Kirill will respond fast. If he doesn't, we can move it to next month.

[majestic titan]

17:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay mate, aside from any movement on the interview front, I think I'm happy with everything in this issue -- well done. I think give Kirill 24 hours for the interview before we issue it regardless, yep? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chilean battleship Capitán Prat

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?